Thanks Ingo. The place where I work uses AsciiDocs. It is just an enhanced markdown. It's not programmable at all. I started to push them towards groff but it is important to get HTML output since, these days, people more often view documents than print them. Sounds like it is a good thing I didn't push too hard. Being someone with a fair degree of troff usage, it is a shame I can't use it in many of the docs I write.
Thanks! Blake McBride On Sun, Apr 14, 2019 at 3:39 PM Ingo Schwarze <schwa...@usta.de> wrote: > Hi Blake, > > Blake McBride wrote on Sun, Apr 14, 2019 at 02:55:52PM -0500: > > > I composed a user manual with MM. Looks great. > > I now need an HTML version. > [...] > > Any help would sure be appreciated! > > When you need HTML output, use mdoc(7) - not groff_mm(7) - > and mandoc(1) - not groff(1). > > If you feel you cannot use mdoc(7) for some reason, use man(7) and > mandoc(1). The resulting quality will be much lower than with > mdoc(7) in every respect, but it is still acceptable: most of > manpages.debian.org is formatted that way. > > I admit that some extremely historic documentation was written in > macro languages like mm, ms, and me. But doing so has now been a > very bad idea for at least the last twenty years, or more likely > for the last thirty years. > > Improving grohtml is extremely difficult as a consequence of its > basic architecture, to the point that i would call any such attempt > a waste of time even in case of success, and besides, it would be > more likely to turn into a wild goose chase. Anyway, i'm not aware > that anyone has been interested in doing any significant work on > grohtml during at the last ten years, and i'm not surprised about > that. Groff is a great system, but HTML output is among the few > aspects where its fundamental architecture prevents satisfactory > results in practice. > > Yours, > Ingo >
